Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013; 73(4): 295-298
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328203
Aktuell diskutiert
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Geburtshilfe. Schwangerenvorsorge im Umbau: Vom Kopf auf die Füße?

Britta Yazdi
,
Harald Abele
,
Eva Maria Grischke
,
Karl Oliver Kagan
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 May 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Die klassische Schwangerenvorsorge in Deutschland, sowie in den meisten westlichen Ländern, zeigt in ihrer Untersuchungsfrequenz eine pyramidenartige Struktur. Sind anfangs nur wenige Untersuchungstermine in der Schwangerschaft vorgesehen, nimmt die Häufigkeit der Kontrollen mit zunehmendem Gestationsalter zu. Seit einigen Jahren lassen sich immer mehr Risiken für verschiedene Schwangerschaftskomplikationen im Ersttrimester-Screening vorhersagen. Ist es an der Zeit, die „Pyramide der Schwangerenvorsorge“ umzudrehen?

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Nicolaides KH. A model for a new pyramid of prenatal care based on the 11 to 13 weeksʼ assessment. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 3-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D et al. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 1992; 304: 867-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Sarquis R et al. Prediction of early, intermediate and late pre-eclampsia from maternal factors, biophysical and biochemical markers at 11–13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 66-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Greco E, Lange A, Ushakov F et al. Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery from endocervical length at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2010; 31: 84-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Syngelaki A, Chelemen T, Dagklis T et al. Challenges in the diagnosis of fetal non-chromosomal abnormalities at 11–13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 90-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bujold E, Roberge S, Lacasse Y et al. Prevention of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction with aspirin started in early pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (2 Pt 1) 402-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Abele H et al. Future developments in obstetrics. Gynäkologe 2012; 45: 684-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yu CKH, Khouri O, Onwudiwe N et al. for the Fetal Medicine Foundation Second-Trimester Screening Group. Prediction of pre-eclampsia by uterine artery Doppler imaging: relationship to gestational age at delivery and small-for-gestational age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 310-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 MacKay AP, Berg CJ, Atrash HK. Pregnancy-related mortality from preeclampsia and eclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 533-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Papageorghiou AT, Campbell S. First trimester screening for preeclampsia. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 18: 594-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S et al. Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 2008; 12: iii-iv 1–270
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cuckle HS. Screening for pre-eclampsia–lessons from aneuploidy screening. Placenta 2011; 32 (Suppl.) S42-S48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Honest H, Forbes CA, Durée KH et al. Screening to prevent spontaneous preterm birth: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: 1-627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Celik E, To M, Gajewska K et al. on behalf of the Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Cervical length and obstetric history predict spontaneous preterm birth: development and validation of a model to provide individualized risk assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 549-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vergnes J, Sixou M. Preterm low birth weight and maternal periodontal status: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 135.e1-135.e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fonseca EB, Celik E, Parra M et al. Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Progesterone and the risk of preterm birth among women with a short cervix. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 462-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379 (9828) 1800-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR et al. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1991-2002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nanda S, Akolekar R, Sarquis R et al. Maternal serum adiponectin at 11 to 13 weeks of gestation in the prediction of macrosomia. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 479-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Plasencia W, Garcia R, Pereira S et al. Criteria for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in the first trimester of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011; 30: 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 258-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Karagiannis G, Akolekar R, Sarquis R et al. Prediction of small-for-gestation neonates from biophysical and biochemical markers at 11–13 weeks. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011; 29: 148-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Plasencia W, González Dávila E, Tetilla V et al. First-trimester screening for large-for-gestational-age infants. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 389-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kagan KO, Etchegaray A, Zhou Y et al. Prospective validation of first-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 14-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kagan KO, Wright D, Valencia C et al. Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate, free-hCG and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Human Reproduction 2008; 23: 1968-1975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Kozlowski P. Assessment of foetal DNA in maternal blood – a useful tool in the hands of prenatal specialists. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 998-1003
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Ashoor G et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-trimester population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 374.e1-374.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pereira S, Ganapathy R, Syngelaki A et al. Contribution of fetal tricuspid regurgitation in first-trimester screening for major cardiac defects. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1384-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Scheier M, Lachmann R, Pětroš M et al. Three-dimensional sonography of the posterior fossa in fetuses with open spina bifida at 11–13 weeksʼ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 625-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chaoui R, Nicolaides KH. Detecting open spina bifida at the 11–13-week scan by assessing intracranial translucency and the posterior brain region: mid-sagittal or axial plane?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 609-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chaoui R, Benoit B, Heling KS et al. Prospective detection of open spina bifida at 11–13 weeks by assessing intracranial translucency and posterior brain. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 722-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bartlett LA, Berg CJ, Shulman HB et al. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 729-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar